Gilroy

Kinsmith Financial Corp. v. Gilroy

Good Law
105 Cal. App. 4th 447·129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 478·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 64·2003 Daily Journal DAR 659·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 543
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 2003A098147, A098661California3,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marchiano, J.

Defendant J. Robert Gilroy, a judgment debtor, claims that a 1992 deficiency judgment is unenforceable because more than 10 years passed since issuance of the original foreclosure decree. Gilroy contends that the time for renewing the judgment ran from the date of the foreclosure decree and not from the entry of the deficiency judgment. But the one action rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 726 and the procedure for renewal of judgments in sections 683.110 to 683.220, as applied to this case, allow renewal of the deficiency judgment. We reject Gilroy’s argument because it is unsupported by case law or the language of the applicable statutes and affirm the orders in these consolidated cases.

Background

In 1983, a partnership of which Gilroy was a general partner borrowed $3.23 million from plaintiff Kinsmith Financial Corporation to purchase land and construct a 42-unit condominium project in Lake County. The loan was secured by a deed of trust and security agreement and by Gilroy’s personal guaranty agreement. On March 1, 1985, Kinsmith declared the loan in default.

On July 6, 1989, Kinsmith filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure and other causes of action in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.